Free Republic

J.D. Hayworth yesterday took to the airwaves to pummel Grant Woods for filing a complaint with the FEC against the talk show host and potential Senate candidate. Woods alleged Hayworth is pulling in $540,000 a week in corporate in-kind contributions from KFYI/Clear Channel for using his show as a campaign platform. The response came in true talk show form as Hayworth called Woods an “ambulance chaser” who cashed in on a tobacco settlement lawsuit that was sold as a public health measure. “You’re even lower than some bacterial forms of algae, and that’s saying something,” Hayworth said, before chiding Woods...

Link only, per FR copyright rules

WASHINGTON – Independent advocacy groups will be able to spend more money to try to influence federal elections under a decision Friday from a federal appeals court that overturned rules limiting nonprofits' campaign spending. Three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington agreed with Emily's List, a nonprofit that backs women Democratic candidates who support abortion rights, that the regulations limited free speech rights. The Federal Election Commission enacted the rules in 2005, after concerns were raised about the amount of unlimited "soft money" contributions used to fund attacks in the 2004 election. The FEC said nonprofits would...

The First Amendment, as rewritten under the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, except if it is funded by a corporation, unless it is a media corporation, or if the speech occurs just prior to an election, unless it is in the form of a book, which, even though the law covers books, too, the Federal Election Commission would never apply that law to books because we say so, though we said something entirely different a couple of months ago." In an apoplexy of righteous indignation over...

WASHINGTON.Last March, during the Supreme Court argument concerning the Federal Election Commission's banning of a political movie, several justices were aghast. Suddenly and belatedly they saw the abyss that could swallow the First Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia was "a little disoriented" and Justice Samuel Alito said "that's pretty incredible." Chief Justice John Roberts said: "If we accept your constitutional argument, we're establishing a precedent that you yourself say would extend to banning the book" -- a hypothetical 500-page book containing one sentence that said "vote for" a particular candidate. What shocked them, but should not have, were statements by a...

A central pillar of federal election law appeared to be crumbling Wednesday as government lawyers faced tough questioning at a special Supreme Court hearing about whether limitations on corporate and union campaign spending violated the First Amendment right to free speech.

High court tackles 'Hillary: The Movie,' again It's 'not a musical comedy,' Justice Stephen Breyer says of the film WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court signaled Wednesday it may let businesses and unions spend freely to help their favored political candidates in time for next year's elections. In a case that began with a movie attacking Hillary Rodham Clinton, newly seated Justice Sonia Sotomayor jumped right into the questioning. She appeared skeptical about taking the far-reaching step of lifting the ban, a move urged on the court by a lawyer for a group that made the 90-minute movie that sought to...

The selective muzzles applied by the McCain-Feingold law. BY DAVID N. BOSSIE The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." The Framers' clear intent was first and foremost to protect political speech. Today, in a rare summer session, the Supreme Court will hear arguments as to whether it should overrule two previous, and in my opinion incorrectly decided, rulings on political free speech. Namely, the justices will decide whether or not to allow Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce and a significant section of McConnell v. Federal...

The Supreme Court considers government controls over speech. The Supreme Court is hearing arguments today regarding Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The case could decide what political speech is prohibited by federal campaign finance laws. To put it simply, campaign finance laws constrain free speech. This showdown provides the high court with an opportunity to make clear that it's not the proper role of government to limit how much is being spent on campaigns or by whom. The controversy of the day is over a film released during the 2008 presidential campaign. "Hillary The Movie" didn't expressly advocate that...

The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear arguments from campaign finance reform advocates and opponents in a case many insiders say will be the most significant decision in more than 35 years. The case the court will hear, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, has the potential to overturn key elements of campaign finance law that prevent corporate spending on elections, a move that would open the door to millions of dollars that could not be spent previously. “This is the biggest case in campaign finance law, really, since Buckley v. Valeo in 1976,” said Rob Kelner, a partner at...

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court appears poised to wipe away limits on campaign spending by corporations and labor unions in time for next year's congressional elections in a case that began as a dispute over a movie about Hillary Rodham Clinton. The justices return to the bench Wednesday — nearly a month early — to consider whether to overrule two earlier decisions that restrict how and when corporations and unions can take part in federal campaigns. Laws that impose similar limits in 24 states also are threatened. The court first heard arguments in March in the case of whether...

THE Supreme Court seems poised to reshape cam paign-finance law, affirm ing fundamental First Amendment rights by overturning restrictions on corporate political speech when it rehears Citizens United v. FEC next Tuesday. At issue is whether the government can ban distribution of a political documentary, "Hillary: The Movie," produced by Citizens United, a conservative group that received some corporate funding to make the film. The government argues that it can -- relying on a 1990 case, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, that upheld a state law banning corporate political spending, and McConnell v. FEC, the 2003 case that upheld...

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will cut short its summer break in early September to hear a new argument in a momentous case that could transform the way political campaigns are conducted. The case, which arises from a minor political documentary called “Hillary: The Movie,” seemed an oddity when it was first argued in March. Just six months later, it has turned into a juggernaut with the potential to shatter a century-long understanding about the government’s ability to bar corporations from spending money to support political candidates. The case has also deepened a profound split among liberals, dividing those who...

With the battle over ObamaCare heating up to white-hot temperatures -- which promise to become even hotter in the fall -- I became a little curious today to see who the heavy hitters are, donations-wise, to Democrats in their fight to keep all those un-American, well-dressed mobs currently invading August town halls across the country from seizing the reins of power in a coup d’état of astounding proportions. … Naturally, the top spot's occupied by our favorite group of folks; the lawyers. For 2008, they somehow managed to rub two nickels together -- to the tune of 126.8 million dollars...

The Republican National Committee is asking a federal court to restore the ability of national parties to raise unlimited amounts of money and to spend it to help elect state-level candidates. The case focuses on hotly contested governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia. The 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign financing law (PL 107-155) does not allow national parties to give money directly to state candidates. The RNC wants to change that so it can expressly back the party nominee for governor, advertise and send out mailings on behalf of state or local Republican candidates and make get-out-the-vote calls. The law also...

<p>Decades of lawmaking and court decisions restricting the flow of cash into U.S. elections are on the verge of coming undone, placing President Barack Obama in the unexpected position of presiding over the possible demise of the modern campaign finance regime.</p>

Pair Try to Force Naming of More Commissioners. BY DAN EGGEN Seven years after their landmark campaign finance legislation became law, Sens. John McCain and Russell Feingold are reuniting under the banner of spending reform at a time when restrictions have come under fire both in the courts and at the embattled Federal Election Commission. McCain (R-Ariz.) and Feingold (D-Wis.) announced this week that they were blocking the appointment of Democratic union lawyer John Sullivan to the FEC until President Obama agrees to fill two other open panel seats. The two senators, who co-sponsored legislation in 2002 that banned "soft...

The campaign finance dream team of Sens. Russ Feingold and John McCain is reuniting to block President Barack Obama’s first appointment to the Federal Election Commission and to push him to shake up the embattled agency. In a surprising move that invokes memories of a bitter skirmish during Obama’s annihilation of McCain in last year’s presidential election, Feingold (D-Wis.) and McCain (R-Ariz.) have placed a hold on the FEC nomination of Democratic labor lawyer John Sullivan, POLITICO confirmed Tuesday. Their hold could reverberate in Congress, the White House, the 2010 midterm elections and beyond. In a statement issued in response...

The Court has held that Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (08-205) will be reargued on Wednesday, September 9 at 10 a.m. The Court has issued the following written order: “The parties should address the following question: ‘For the disposition of this case, should the Court overrule either or both Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the part of McConnell v. FEC which addresses the facial validity of Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002?’

WASHINGTON (AP) — Lawmakers rarely shine a positive spotlight on lobbyists, much less publicly toast them and rave about their style on Capitol Hill. But they did just that on Tuesday night for consumer advocate Joan Claybrook, who retired earlier this year as the head of the watchdog group Public Citizen. The organization held a dinner event in honor of her 27-year leadership. Claybrook has become known as one of Washington's most relentless consumer-interest lobbyists. Her work has influenced rules on auto safety standards, congressional ethics, campaign finance and more. Among the lawmakers who praised Claybrook's efforts were House Speaker...

It is unnecessary for me to tell any of you reading this that the left has a stranglehold over both Hollywood and the mainstream media. It is axiomatic in today’s news world . . . . . that the “news” is delivered to your doorstep with a leftward slant. What are less well understood, however, are the lengths to which the government has gone to protect the left’s monopoly during the last decade and the complicity of the news media in that endeavor. The recent confrontation between General Electric CEO Jeffery Immelt and an O’Reilly Factor producer at GE’s shareholder...

John McCain has made a number of heroic contributions to American politics and life, but this law isn't one of them. How in the world did he ever wind up sponsoring this monstrosity? The only excuse I can come up with is that he got involved with bad company. Namely, the very epitome of liberal -- excuse me, progressive -- excess, Russ Feingold. Sen. Feingold's proposals regularly disappoint, but by now they no longer surprise. Justice Kennedy now has figured it out: The whole statute fails the constitutional test. It is an infringement on free speech -- an injury and...

A top adviser to President Barack Obama, whose rejection of public funding for his presidential campaign is widely considered to have killed the Watergate-era reform, is accusing Republican rival John McCain of damaging efforts to revive the system. At issue is an interview the Arizona senator gave Friday to The Washington Times, in which he said that the public financing system, intended to reduce the influence of big money in presidential politics, is “dead.” That comment – according to a blog post by Obama’s personal and political attorney Bob Bauer – “was not helpful” to “the cause of public financing...

On Mar. 24, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Citizens United v. FEC, the latest installment in an ongoing series of challenges to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), better known as McCain-Feingold. This case has far-reaching implications for the future of campaign activities, and draws an important line between the right of citizens to speak out and the power of government to imprison them if they do. The group Citizens United produced a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton during her failed presidential campaign. (Citizens United also made a similar film about Barack Obama, though this lawsuit focused on the...

Sen. John McCain, an architect of sweeping campaign-finance reform who got walloped by a presidential candidate armed with more than $750 million, predicts that no one will ever again accept federal matching funds to run for the nation's highest office. "No Republican in his or her right mind is going to agree to public financing. I mean, that's dead. That is over. The last candidate for president of the United States from a major party that will take public financing was me," the Arizona Republican told The Washington Times.

March 27, 2009, 4:00 a.m. A Clear Danger to Free SpeechBy the Editors From its conception, the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law was an assault on the First Amendment. Signing that unconstitutional bill into law, knowing it to be unconstitutional, was one of the worst moments of George W. Bush’s presidency. Yet this malignancy lurks in the legal code, widely accepted, even celebrated. Now Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart has gone before the Supreme Court arguing that McCain-Feingold gives the government the right to ban books and films. He’s right, it does. And for that reason, McCain-Feingold should be nullified. At...

Arguments before the Supreme Court often make for rather dull, and predictable, affairs. The justices have presumably read the briefings, so they know what each side is going to argue. Often, they use the arguments to clear up a minor point or, Court watchers sometimes say, try to persuade the other justices to adopt their positions. But the script seemed to get tossed out the window on Tuesday during arguments over whether the airing of a documentary attacking Hillary Clinton violated the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law and, in the end, just how far McCain Feingold is constitutionally permitted to reach....

WASHINGTON — A quirky case about a slashing documentary attacking Hillary Rodham Clinton would not seem to be the most obvious vehicle for a fundamental re-examination of the interplay between the First Amendment and campaign finance laws. But by the end of an exceptionally lively argument at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, it seemed at least possible that five justices were prepared to overturn or significantly limit parts of the court’s 2003 decision upholding the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which regulates the role of money in politics.

Link only, per FR copyright and posting policy

Months after its debut, "Hillary: The Movie" faces nine of the nation's toughest critics: the Supreme Court. The justices' review of the slashing documentary financed by longtime critics of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton could bring more than just a thumbs up or thumbs down. It may settle the question of whether the government can regulate a politically charged film as a campaign ad. David Bossie, a former Republican congressional aide who produced the Clinton movie and another describing then-Sen. Barack Obama as an overhyped media darling, said his films are about important moments in American politics. "The outcome...

A simple apology would have sufficed. Instead, Sen. Russ Feingold has decided to follow his McCain-Feingold evisceration of the First Amendment with Feingold-McCain, more vandalism against the Constitution. The Wisconsin Democrat, who is steeped in his state's progressive tradition, says, as would-be amenders of the Constitution often do, that he is reluctant to tamper with the document but tamper he must because the threat to the public weal is immense: Some governors have recently behaved badly in appointing people to fill U.S. Senate vacancies. Feingold's solution, of which John McCain is a co-sponsor, is to amend the 17th Amendment. It...

Eat your heart out Jack Abramoff. President Obama looks forward to a guaranteed supply of Democrat campaign money which will make the imprisoned Republican fundraiser look like the small time operator he was. And better yet, Obama's multi-billion dollar nationwide scheme to circumvent campaign spending laws comes neatly disguised as a Hawaii-only deal for "reconciliation" and "justice". "Campaign finance" isn't even in the bill's description. It is called the Akaka Bill. Reintroduced February 4 for the 2009 Congressional session as S381 and HR862, the Akaka Bill creates a process to establish a Native Hawaiian Tribal Government. If it reaches his...

Reporting from Washington -- Rep. Grace F. Napolitano (D-Norwalk) has collected tens of thousands of dollars in personal income by charging double-digit interest on money she lent her campaign 11 years ago and soliciting donations from Washington lobbyists at "debt retirement" fundraisers.

VIDEO A little over a week after the November 4th elections, the Republican National Committee filed federal lawsuits to repeal McCain-Feingold federal campaign finance regulations. A day before the RNC elected it's new chairman, Michael Steele, the Democratic National Committee attempted to block the RNC's lawsuits to repeal McCain-Feingold. A recent press release from the DNC said the following: WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today the Democratic National Committee announced that it filed a motion to intervene in the case of the Republican National Committee v. FEC, in which the RNC is seeking to dismantle the soft money provisions of...

Democratic National Committee files motion to intervene in RNC v. FEC WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today the Democratic National Committee announced that it filed a motion to intervene in the case of the Republican National Committee v. FEC, in which the RNC is seeking to dismantle the soft money provisions of the bi-partisan McCain Feingold campaign reform act (BCRA) of 2002. After a bruising defeat in November 2008, the RNC filed suit in the District of Columbia, challenging the constitutionality of the central tenet of BCRA - the ban on national party soft money. In its suit, the RNC...

McCain-Feingold and the Fairness Doctrine hurt more than speakers’ rights.We usually think of freedom of speech as involving the right of speakers to speak, whether through public addresses, in writing, or over radio and television airwaves. But the courts have recognized an additional dimension to First Amendment free speech rights: the right to listen and watch. This right takes center stage in a current challenge to the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law and could play a role in the debate about the Fairness Doctrine. Every circuit appeals court has acknowledged the right to listen and watch. For example, in 2003’s Rossignol...

Sometimes I wish there were a humane way to get rid of the rich. Without the rich for whipping boys, we might be able to concentrate on what's best for the 99 and a half percent of the rest of us. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, with about $60 billion in assets each, are America's richest men. With all that money, what can they force us to do? Can they take our house to make room so that another person can build an auto dealership or a casino parking lot? Can they force us to pay money into the government-run...

Sometimes I wish there were a humane way to get rid of the rich. Without the rich for whipping boys, we might be able to concentrate on what's best for the 99 and a half percent of the rest of us. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, with about $60 billion in assets each, are America's richest men. With all that money, what can they force us to do? Can they take our house to make room so that another person can build an auto dealership or a casino parking lot? Can they force us to pay money into the government-run...

Sens. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Wednesday dusted off the reform mantle and formally launched their latest crusade: significantly curbing the use of earmarks in appropriations.

Abstract: The runoff for a U.S. Senate seat in Georgia is providing a stark example of how candidates in the 2008 election have been able to skirt campaign-finance limits -- without actually breaking the law. Federal campaign-finance law limits individuals to donating $2,300 to a candidate per election. Yet Republicans and Democrats are soliciting donations more than 10 times that amount for the Dec. 2 runoff in Georgia. GOP fund-raisers are asking people to give as much as $65,500 toward incumbent Sen. Saxby Chambliss's campaign, while Democrats are seeking donations up to $30,800 for challenger Jim Martin. So how are...

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court will hear an appeal from a conservative group that wanted to promote its anti-Hillary Clinton movie without complying with a landmark campaign finance law. The justices, in an order Friday, said they will review a lower court ruling that the 90-minute "Hillary: The Movie" was clearly intended to influence people to vote against Clinton in her run for the presidency. The movie was made by Citizens United.

PRESS RELEASE November 14, 2008 Contact: James Bopp, Jr. Cell Phone 812/243-0825; Phone 812/232-2434; Fax 812/235-3685; jboppjr@aol.com Supreme Court to Review Citizens United’s Hillary:The Movie Case Today the U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case of Citizens United v. FEC for review. The case concerns Citizens United’s desire to broadcast television advertisements for its documentary titled Hillary: The Movie (hillarythemovie.com). Because the ads qualify as “electioneering communications” under McCain-Feingold, Citizens United is required to report its donors and put political disclaimers on the ads. Citizens United objects to these requirements because its advertisements are “political speech” that is fully protected from...

The Republican Party will file federal lawsuits Thursday seeking to overthrow the McCain-Feingold federal campaign finance regulations, Republican National Committee Chairman Robert M. "Mike" Duncan revealed Wednesday night at a private dinner with the nation's Republican governors. The move is considered a slap in the face of the Republican Party's failed 2008 presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who was dramatically outspent by Democrat Barack Obama, and of President Bush, who signed McCain-Feingold into law in 2002. "We will bring two federal suits tomorrow to strengthen the Republican Party," Mr. Duncan told The Washington Times. Mr. Duncan said one...

My friends, If John McCain wins this election (and I pray he does), do you think he will have learned any lasting lessons about, oh, say the media, campaign finance regulations, reaching across the aisle....?Just wondering.

John McCain suggested that his Democratic rival Barack Obama’s record-shattering fundraising haul will lead to scandal in their presidential race and future races, and he hinted that there may already be funny business going on with Obama’s legions of small donors. Obama announced Sunday morning that he pulled in $150 million in September, which McCain described on “Fox News Sunday” as “completely breaking whatever idea we had after Watergate to keep the cost and spending on campaigns under control. First time, first time since the Watergate scandal. And I can tell you this: that has unleashed now in presidential campaigns...

PHILADELPHIA — Senator Barack Obama is days away from breaking the advertising spending record set by President Bush in the general election four years ago, having unleashed an advertising campaign of a scale and complexity unrivaled in the television era. With advertisements running repeatedly day and night, on local stations and on the major broadcast networks, on niche cable networks and even on video games and his own dedicated satellite channels, Mr. Obama is now outadvertising Senator John McCain nationwide by a ratio of at least four to one, according to CMAG, a service that monitors political advertising. That difference...

John McCain's come-from-behind bid for the presidency is being damaged by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, better known as the McCain-Feingold bill. The workings of McCain-Feingold and the Democratic Party's huge fund-raising advantage have left Mr. McCain debilitatingly dependent on the $85 million in taxpayer financing he received last month. The Politico newspaper reported yesterday that Mr. Obama is outspending the combined McCain campaign/Republican National Committee campaign effort by as much as 8-1, and that probably understates Mr. McCain's disadvantage. In the first three weeks of September, Mr. Obama ran 1,342 television commercials in the Washington media market,...

"The Republicans lost because they were too conservative." "No, not conservative enough." "They lost because they disappointed the religious right." "No, because they are too tied to the religious right." Many of us feel the loss was due to what I call "McCain-Soros." Ever since the passage of McCain-Feingold, money has poured into organizations such as MoveOn.org, which in turn demonizes Republicans, painting a portrait of them as the incarnation of evil. The ads have had as their goal one thing: leaving a sour taste in the mouth of the electorate over anything Republican, conservative or religious. It has worked....

PRESS RELEASE October 3, 2008 Contact: James Bopp, Jr. Cell Phone 812/243-0825; Phone 812/232-2434; Fax 812/235-3685; jboppjr@aol.comCommittee for Truth in Politics Seek Preliminary Injunction Today, the Committee for Truth in Politics, Inc. (“CTP”) filed suit to protect it from FEC investigation and enforcement action for running an ad, titled Basic Rights, which qualifies as an “electioneering communication” under federal election law, but cannot be regulated because it is protected by the “appeal-to-vote” test announce by Chief Justice Roberts in the 2007 decision of Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life ("WRTL II"). The text of the ad is as...

<p>A founding member of the campaign of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois met in New York City tonight with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.</p> <p>Jodie Evans, who co-hosted Obama's first major fundraiser in Hollywood in February 2007 just after Obama announced his candidacy and is a top fundraiser and donor to Obama's campaign, led a delegation of leftist anti-American groups that held a private meeting near the United Nations. The stated purpose of the meeting was to "serve as an opening for diplomatic resolution" to prevent war between Iran and the United States.</p>